Directly taking on the environmentalist movement, who say human beings and their carbon
dioxide emissions cause global warming, a group of Argentine
scientists is asserting that it is the Sun--not man--that is
responsible for climate change, and that this has been the case
for tens of thousands of years.
Scientists from the Argentine Oceanographic Institute (IADO)
and the Geological Institute of the South (Ingeosur) collected
data from an estuary in the city of Bahia Blanca, in the province
of Buenos Aires, at a depth of 15 meters, which they say
contradict several studies and forecasts made by radical
environmentalist groups. "We intended to prove a theory that
opposes several [environmentalist] dogmas," says Dr. Eduardo
Gomez, IADO's deputy director.
The studies, performed over two decades, show that that
climate change isn't a simple anomaly but rather has always
existed, as verified in geological records corresponding to the
last 10,000 years. The data show that during that period, there
have been oscillations in average sea level caused by alternating
periods of freezing and melting, due to global climate change,
and that these variations are uncontrollable.
Dr. Gomez explained that this theory implies that human
activity cannot stop global warming, which will reach its maximum
point in 600 years. "It's clear to us that at least over the past
10,000 years, the Sun determined--and determines--global
temperatures on Earth; climate change obeys natural cycles, and
the evidence of same is beneath the sea where variations in sea
level produced by fluctuation in solar activity, can be found.
When the sea level dropped, it was cold, and when it rose, it was
hot."
The Argentine scientists used carbon-14 dating to determine
the age of sedimentary deposits and also conducted
paleo-environmental studies of microfossils. These analyses
indicated the existence of many different sea levels, well below
today's level, spaced out over time. "These studies show that
global temperature changes {always existed}, including during
historical eras: there are clear indications that approximately
1,000 years ago, the Vikings colonized Greenland during a period
of heat, when there was less ice on the surface of the Earth than
today," Gomez said.
"Man's action on the planet is important," Gomez said. "But
in this case, it's not a determining factor for changing the
climate on a planetary scale, because this doesn't depend on
human activity, but rather on the Sun."

In fairness, rebellin, you are publishing "evidence" of sorts - not great evidence, but it is a step up from irrelevant remarks about Al Gore and hockey sticks we have been getting from others.

These Argentine guys are having great fun attacking a straw man. If you are in touch with them, perhaps you could tell them that it is almost universally acknowledged by climate scientists that the bulk of energy in the earth's climate system comes from the sun.

You might point out the them that basic physics and chemistry, known since about the 1900s and confirmed since the 1950s, say that greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere trap the sun's heat and warm the earth. Otherwise the earth would have much the same temperature distribution as the moon (allowing for size).

It is the increase is greenhouse gases from man's industrial and agricultural by-products that is causing the current warming.

I presume they would agree with this - if not, they are pretty much outside the pale of science.

So this guy Gomez then makes a few, off-the-cuff remarks about the Vikings, natural variation and ice extent. He quotes no sources, reports no experiments, or refers to no paper in the peer reviewed literature. Where did he get the evidence for this? Much of what he says has been "out there" from science deniers for a long time, and has been pretty much debunked.

Finally, where did you get this report? I can give you science references, but you go first.

John Nielsen-Gammon examines what climate scientists believe about global warming, and comes to these conclusions:

90% or 97% (depending on the study) believe that global average surface temperatures have increased over the past century or two.

82% or 84% believe that human activity is significantly contributing to this warming.

85% think that the warming is at least moderately dangerous.

41% believe that the warming will pose a very great danger to the Earth in the next 50-100 years

He goes on:

This is not rocket science. The Earth is warming; there’s an important human contribution, and it’s something to worry about. This is the scientific consensus. Earth scientists are substantially split only on whether the warming is potentially catastrophic.

In a related post, He discusses the related acronym "CAGW", which mean "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming". As evidence mounts for AGW, this term is being used by the denialist community to change the goalposts. Not that it stops them spreading confusion at every opportunity.

It is interesting to compare N-G's figures with the recent Reuters/IPSOS poll taken in the United States.

83% believe that global warming is real.

59% believe that it is caused mostly or partly by humans.

Other questions: not asked.

So 10% to 15% difference on the first, which is not surprising, but the 20%+ difference on the second is quite wide. Indeed, the difference is mostly made up of US Republicans, particularly Tea Party members. And these are the ones who are most sure (i.e. least skeptical) of their own beliefs. A case of faith trumping science?

Ms Rebel obviously can only read stuff at the LaRouche website. She seems to be blind for anything

The only thing worse than being blind is to have no vision--- Helen Keller

Be sure I have plenty of visions (=> my signature), but I also see the reality. Reality is that 97% of world's climatologists are saying that humanmade CO2 is warming the planet and that the outcome and the forecast are anything but a bagatelle. Reality is that We can see worldwide how far humanmade climate change has brought us in a (geologically) very short period of time. You are seemingly blind enough not to see that.

More accurately, you can't "debunk" anything with a Hokey Schtick - as you attempted to do. Once that even makes an appearance, readers justifiably disregard your post and move on.

It is the climate equivalent to Godwin's.

That's what you guys like to see. But it's only an ignorant minority who doesn't accept peer reviewed science. You're only trying to make things up, because you cannot disprove evidence, data and conclusions. Where are your peer reviewed studies disproving the "hockey stick" graph of Mann et al would be incorrect?

Only because you declare a graph as "the climate equivalent to Godwin's" does not make it less important, silly.

"If we want to stay below 2 degrees and possibly achieve 1.5 in the 22nd century then we're not going to get around these negative emissions," said one lead author, Malte Meinshausen, of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

"This is a crucial change in perception, that there is a point and it is very close at which time if we put CO2 into the atmosphere future generations will have to take it out again."

That's what you guys like to see. But it's only an ignorant minority who doesn't accept peer reviewed science. You're only trying to make things up, because you cannot disprove evidence, data and conclusions. Where are your peer reviewed studies disproving the "hockey stick" graph of Mann et al would be incorrect?

Only because you declare a graph as "the climate equivalent to Godwin's" does not make it less important, silly.

MM is the key to understanding the destruction of hte Hokey Sticks in all there incestuous forms.:

Go and read those and then understand why both the Wegman report and the NAS panel enquiry (North enquiry) found the criticisms on this entire field of multproxy studies to be seriously flawed due to BOTH the flawed and inappropriate proxies they used as well as the flawed statistical methodology.

The Warmy Alarmists are getting so seriously worried about the direction of not only public opinion of their antics, but also the building encroachment of peer reviewed research that is making a complete mockery of their "consensus".

Note in recent weeks we have had three (three) separate independent peer reviewed papers that indicate tht clouds have (in the real world) a significant net negative feedback effect on warming - in direct conflict with the Warmy Alarmist Hypothesis.

That slimy Trenberth is trying to fight a rearguard action, but he is already looking for another way out of this dilemna. So now they are trying to position a "a pause in warming is consistent with our awarmy alarmist hypothesis" line. And here it comes.

I predict more and more and more scientists will be piling in on the fun as there will be some easy academic points to earn here as the political stranglehold that had intimidated proper research and publication is ever weakened. Recent weeks are but a taste and Trenberth's increasing desperation is evidence he knows the writing is on the wall for him and that he has painted himself into a corner.

Go and read those and then understand why both the Wegman report and the NAS panel enquiry (North enquiry) found the criticisms on this entire field of multproxy studies to be seriously flawed due to BOTH the flawed and inappropriate proxies they used as well as the flawed statistical methodology.

You are the most stupid person on this forum, without exception.

M&M - nothing published since 2005, E&E is a joke of a journal and these guys are still teaching Dead Horse Flogging 101 to Tombo and his mates. The gratuitous insult at the end sums up the tone and content of denialism.

PS The North Report for the National Research Council substantially back up Michael Mann.

The panel published its report in 2006.[103]
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes ...

The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect.

About Politics.ie

Politics.ie is one of Ireland's leading politics and current affairs discussion websites with more than 600,000 visitors a month. Founded in 2003, Politics.ie has one of the most engaged, respected and influential politics and current affairs communities.